Here is the direct quote.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=commencement_programs
That is very alarming. It does make her a threat to our rights and liberties, amd is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution. Her entire speech was basically a sermon.
Aha, now we have it. That's useful.
All she is saying, it seems to me, is that a religious person should always, whatever they do in life, do it in the service of God, because for a religious believer that is the overall goal of life. Don't forget, this is an address to a room full of potential lawyers, fresh out of law school. Most will go on to be attorneys or legal advisers. They have choices to make about the fields they practise in and on how they conduct themselves in their work. This is a pep talk exhorting them to remember their faith as they make their way in life. That's fair enough, I think.
She explains that what she means is that these graduates should not let pursuit of a career in the law become an end in itself (You cannot serve both God and Mammon, basically). She then goes on to give three examples of what she means by a "different sort of lawyer". One is praying to St Ignatius before making career decisions, another is giving 10% of your income to charity and a third is when moving to a new location to seek out fellow Catholics and become part of the community.
There is nothing here that says she personally would bend the law out of shape to serve some particular agenda, nor that these graduates should try to do so. In fact her subsequent pronouncements about recusing herself from capital punishment cases seem to indicate she is aware that she is duty-bound to withdraw if she can't set her personal beliefs aside.
She may or may not be be a religious crank (People of Praise is not a good sign, in my estimation), but there's no smoking gun here.